Health Care for Everyone

[BAZZ]

Who benefits? Well, the persons that wouldn't be able to have (afford) a insurance in a non-universal health care plan? Or am i wrong there? (Did i misunderstand something there?)

Yeah, they are paying. If they are paying to help the one's that benefit from the health care (three lines up) then I think it's right. Having one person feeling "d*mn, I really got a lot of MONAY!" is (in my opnion) not more important then having fifteen people not worrying about affording to go the hospital.

I don't see it as I've wronged a group, I see it as I've done something right for a much larger group.

Experimental treatments, I wouldn't know anything about it apart from that It's very hard to get.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, they are paying. If they are paying to help the one's that benefit from the health care (three lines up) then I think it's right. Having one person feeling "d*mn, I really got a lot of MONAY!" is (in my opnion) not more important then having fifteen people not worrying about affording to go the hospital.

I don't see it as I've wronged a group, I see it as I've done something right for a much larger group.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor eh? Well that's fine as long as the rich didn't actually earn their wealth or produce anything. But if they got that way because they work hard, get educated, and produce more - then you're just stealing. If the poor are poor because they didn't work hard, get educated, or produce - then you're just encouraging bad behavior.

Justice is getting what you earned. If you worked extra hard for your money, I don't see any reason that it should be handed to another group - or any reason why the hard working group should be prevented from hiring the best minds in the business to keep them healthy.

Experimental treatments, I wouldn't know anything about it apart from that It's very hard to get.

I'm sure - because one of the many bad things about socialized medicine is that it strongly discourages innovation.

 

[Omnis]

I don't see it as I've wronged a group, I see it as I've done something right for a much larger group.

You've still first wronged a group.

And ironically for medicine... Remember: "First, do no harm."

 

[BAZZ]

Steal from the rich and give to the poor eh? Well that's fine as long as the rich didn't actually earn their wealth or produce anything. But if they got that way because they work hard, get educated, and produce more - then you're just stealing. If the poor are poor because they didn't work hard, get educated, or produce - then you're just encouraging bad behavior.

Justice is getting what you earned. If you worked extra hard for your money, I don't see any reason that it should be handed to another group - or any reason why the hard working group should be prevented from hiring the best minds in the business to keep them healthy.

We've got something like 5-7% (not sure on the figure, will edit when I've found it) immigrants in Sweden. Quite common for them to have very limited or no knowledge of how to speak Swedish. Quite a large number of them have come from the middle east/Ethiopia and countries where they are less fortunate so to say. Are we supposed to just turn our backs on them simply because some of them haven't got a education or speak the language? Yeah, that will make it hard finding a job here. Trust me.
To say, "nope, you can't get any health care here you fool, you haven't EARNED it yet!" is just.. Ohh dear.

I'm sure - because one of the many bad things about socialized medicine is that it strongly discourages innovation.

Good thing you are sure cap'n.

You've still first wronged a group.

And ironically for medicine... Remember: "First, do no harm."

Ok, and by not doing it I'm doing something I consider being way more harmful to a larger group of people.
"First, do no harm." I couldn't have agreed more.

 

[Famine]

We've got something like 5-7% (not sure on the figure, will edit when I've found it) immigrants in Sweden. Quite common for them to have very limited or no knowledge of how to speak Swedish. Quite a large number of them have come from the middle east/Ethiopia and countries where they are less fortunate so to say. Are we supposed to just turn our backs on them simply because some of them haven't got a education or speak the language? Yeah, that will make it hard finding a job here. Trust me.
To say, "nope, you can't get any health care here you fool, you haven't EARNED it yet!" is just.. Ohh dear.

You're mixing up aspects of the benefits system. Privatised healthcare isn't necessarily linked to Welfare. Have you seen the immigrant population of the USA?

Good thing you are sure cap'n.

I am. I live in a Nationalised Healthcare system - and the NHS is haemorrhaging patients to mainland Europe and the USA, where they can get quicker, better treatment - often more advanced too - at a lower cost.

Ok, and by not doing it I'm doing something I consider being way more harmful to a larger group of people.
"First, do no harm." I couldn't have agreed more.

Rights are not subject to a majority vote.

 

[BAZZ]

Well, if you are on Welfare, do you get free health care? (In a non-NHS/Evil Socialistic Saddam-system.)

 

[Danoff]

Well, if you are on Welfare, do you get free health care? (In a non-NHS/Evil Socialistic Saddam-system.)

A) No health care is free.
B) Yes, charity does exist in the US, there are free clinics. Charity does not have to be government regulated.

 

[BAZZ]

Thanks Danoff.

You're mixing up aspects of the benefits system. Privatised healthcare isn't necessarily linked to Welfare. Have you seen the immigrant population of the USA?

No, I'm not mixing it up then. The one's I'm talking about are in most cases also on Welfare and they need health care just as anyone else does. That's what i meant anyways. I wasn't talking about welfare at all.
Edit: Yes I've seen and heard about the immigration in the USA. I was however, talking about Sweden, and what we are doing as a example to the answer i gave (Sorry Danoff, lol) Danoff.

 

[Famine]

A) No health care is free.

Isn't ER treatment free (to the point where you are no longer liable to die spontaneously if left to your own devices)?

No, I'm not mixing it up then. The one's I'm talking about are in most cases also on Welfare and they need health care just as anyone else does. That's what i meant anyways. I wasn't talking about welfare at all.

But the two are not necessarily linked systems. The Welfare one receives can be put towards health insurance. A state doesn't need to provide both benefits and healthcare.


However, I'm intrigued. Does Sweden commonly accept immigrants with sufficient clear health problems that they load up the health service before they've earned (and contributed) even a pennycent?

 

[Danoff]

Isn't ER treatment free (to the point where you are no longer liable to die spontaneously if left to your own devices)?

Well it still costs somebody - most likely in local taxes. But even if the doctor is volunteering his time, that's still a cost. I was taking the term "free" in a literal sense rather than in the "no per-use fee" sense.

 

[Famine]

Well it still costs somebody - most likely in local taxes. But even if the doctor is volunteering his time, that's still a cost. I was taking the term "free" in a literal sense rather than in the "no per-use fee" sense.

Ah, by "free" I meant "at no immediate or reclaimable cost to the end user". 'Cos I'm quite in favour of ER treatment being "free".

 

[Danoff]

Ah, by "free" I meant "at no immediate or reclaimable cost to the end user". 'Cos I'm quite in favour of ER treatment being "free".

Yea, that concept doesn't bother me much. I'm not 100% convinced that it's necessary, but it's definitely convenient.

 

[BAZZ]

But the two are not necessarily linked systems. The Welfare one receives can be put towards health insurance. A state doesn't need to provide both benefits and healthcare.


However, I'm intrigued. Does Sweden commonly accept immigrants with sufficient clear health problems that they load up the health service before they've earned (and contributed) even a pennycent?

Well, I don't think they are actually insured, of course they get health care and welfare none the less there's not much point in taking them in if we're just gonna make them into "bums" is it? However. I will ask a friend of mine tomorrow. He's lived here for roughly ten years now. Had a.. Somewhat rough start but is now doing OK. I'll answer better as soon as I can.

Yes. I don't know how common it is but I can safely say that I've never heard of anyone being denied due to bad health. Yes, they get the health care they need.

Edit: I'm really sorry but I've got work in (crap!) seven hours, got to hit the sack. I'll check back tomorrow and I'll try to answer those questions Famine.
Take care and good night!

 

[Danoff]

there's not much point in taking them in if we're just gonna make them into "bums" is it?

By "taking them in" you mean allowing people to immigrate? And by "make them into bums" you mean refusing to give them handouts?

You don't "take in" immigrants. Just because they immigrate doesn't make you responsible for them. They still have to provide for themselves. And if they don't provide for themselves, there's no reason to think that you're responsible for that.

 

[BAZZ]

Ahh damn, poorly formulated again.
Well, yes to some extent. I mean citizenship, include them in some form of educational activity, etc etc, that's what i mean when i say "taking them in". Yes, that is what i mean.

Yeah, some of them can't provide for themselves initially though.
There's one helluva reason for me to do what I can to make their stay here as pleasant as possible for both them and me. However, you don't share my values so I don't think there's much point in me even replying to this message.

 

[Danoff]

Ahh damn, poorly formulated again.
Well, yes to some extent. I mean citizenship, include them in some form of educational activity, etc etc, that's what i mean when i say "taking them in". Yes, that is what i mean.

Yes, you mean taking responsibility for their lives. Why do you think you need to/or even should do that?

 

[BAZZ]

Yes, you mean taking responsibility for their lives. Why do you think you need to/or even should do that?

What happens if I don't? They still need to get some form of income. They'd still need to get some food on the table.
With so few able to get a job, what would they do?

I don't even want to know what would happen to our crime rates if we started thinking "Not my problem.". Some people are of course thinking like that but I'm definitely not one of them. Better giving them a chance to fit into our society, get them a education and give them a honest chance to be a citizen.

Just scraping the "problems" under carpet is not a solution at all.

 

[Famine]

What happens if I don't? They still need to get some form of income. They'd still need to get some food on the table.
With so few able to get a job, what would they do?

Why would you accept such unqualified migrants? Most countries don't accept economic migrants until they have a job to come to.

Unless you're talking about asylum seekers, who get a whole raft of economic and social benefits anywhere they go (providing they are legal asylum seekers) in the name of humanitarianism - but they get healthcare entitlement straight off the bat for a set period, depending upon the state, so I can't imagine you would be talking about them.

 

[BAZZ]

Why would you accept such unqualified migrants? Most countries don't accept economic migrants until they have a job to come to.

Unless you're talking about asylum seekers, who get a whole raft of economic and social benefits anywhere they go (providing they are legal asylum seekers) in the name of humanitarianism - but they get healthcare entitlement straight off the bat for a set period, depending upon the state, so I can't imagine you would be talking about them.

I am talking about mainly asylum seekers that's true. For the one's that does get approval they will get health care just as anyone else. If they get denial on the other hand, different story. However, even so if they are in need of medical care and seek out a hospital (and have been denied asylum here) they will get their treatment. What happens after is not something I'm entirely sure of.

Oh yeah.

But the two are not necessarily linked systems. The Welfare one receives can be put towards health insurance. A state doesn't need to provide both benefits and healthcare.

Managed to find out how it was for a friend of mine. He (and his family) had welfare until he could somewhat understand and speak the language so he could start a education. During this time he also had free health care.

By the way, I've been wanting to say something here that I've completely forgotten. The health care isn't completely free. There's a fee (roughly 18US$) to see a doctor and you are paying for your own medication up to a specific amount. However, if (as my friend was) you are on welfare it will be adjusted to cover the expenses.

Anyways. I'm done in this discussion. Was fun but I really don't want to spend all this time searching for what might or not might not be the correct answer. I have been informed on some things that I know find quite disturbing (considering the tax rates mainly there) but, when I'm looking at it on a larger scale it only makes me sleep better at night knowing that everyone here can get their health care no matter what their circumstances are. That said, I don't approve at _all_ to anyone just abusing the system for his/hers own benefit. I have no doubt that there are people doing that but I bet they don't sleep as well at night. Plus, I don't think they can have much joy in their life on welfare.

Take care everyone and have a good one.

 

[Famine]

Even though we have seemingly differing viewpoints, it has been a nice change to have each of us express them in entirely civil terms.

👍

 

[Omnis]

See, Bazz is why I love the Swedes. I just wish all the socialists in our country would either stop imposing on the rest of us or move to Sweden too.

 

[FoolKiller]

At first i got frustrated and thought "Hell no, I'll prove that b"%tard wrong.". Picked up my latest paycheck and yeah, you are entirely correct. I'm paying a higher tax then 32%. It's "only" by a couple percent but I've been convinced that I have been paying 32%.

Yeah, I was angry when I opened up my W-2 (income tax form) yesterday. Taxes do that.

Sorry, I was wrong there. Mostly shocked though. I normally try to ignore the minus signs on my paychecks.

No biggie. We all make mistakes. You don't want to know how many tabs I had open on my browser to make that post with accurate data.

Neither did I. It was a bit overexaggerated to add it. I would be in debt though. And I'd most likely be in debt for quite some time.

The only people I know who find themselves in this situation are the ones that don't get health care because they don't think they need it. I always find it funny that they could have had health coverage instead of a BMW and now they say I should be forced to pay for their health coverage.

Even low-income people are given payment options and not ruined. The fact is that even minimum wage jobs offer some form of health benefits package, but some people don't want to have the small percentage taken from their paychecks.

I do understand your points though, but I don't agree with anyone saying that universal health care is _bad_ system considering how it might have looked for me if the same thing would have happened if I'd be living in a country without it.

I pay $60 a month out of my paycheck. I don't see how someone can't budget that in our society.

Yeah, they are paying. If they are paying to help the one's that benefit from the health care (three lines up) then I think it's right. Having one person feeling "d*mn, I really got a lot of MONAY!" is (in my opnion) not more important then having fifteen people not worrying about affording to go the hospital.

If a guy breaks into your house and steals your money is that right? No, it is theft.

What if he only did it to pay for his health care? Is it still theft? Is it suddenly OK that he took it against your will?

If you don't pay your taxes what happens? You go to jail. They might as well come around every paycheck and ask for 32% of it with a gun pointed at you.

I don't see it as I've wronged a group, I see it as I've done something right for a much larger group.

How is it that taking money from someone is not wrong?

Experimental treatments, I wouldn't know anything about it apart from that It's very hard to get.

Whereas here, after all traditional treatments have failed, they ask you if you want to try it out. Depending on what stage of testing it is in it may even be free.

B) Yes, charity does exist in the US, there are free clinics. Charity does not have to be government regulated.

In fact, it works better when it isn't.

Ah, by "free" I meant "at no immediate or reclaimable cost to the end user". 'Cos I'm quite in favour of ER treatment being "free".

If a hospital voluntarily chose to do that and raised costs in the rest of the hospital to cover it I would happily agree. But then it should be free across the board and they should be allowed to turn away non-emergencies. An otherwise healthy person in their twenties with a cold should not be allowed to walk in and get free treatment just because they are poor. Doctors should assess what it is and send them to a physician if it is not life threatening.

I'd rather not see a lot of the types of cases you see on ER where people come in, have a sinus infection, are handed a prescription, and moved along. They shouldn't even be there.

 

[Famine]

they should be allowed to turn away non-emergencies.

As it stands in the UK, they are. I'll let Milford Cubicle cover this, given that she's an ER nurse.

An otherwise healthy person in their twenties with a cold should not be allowed to walk in and get free treatment just because they are poor. Doctors should assess what it is and send them to a physician if it is not life threatening.

I'd rather not see a lot of the types of cases you see on ER where people come in, have a sinus infection, are handed a prescription, and moved along. They shouldn't even be there.

Yeah, that's not an emergency. Then again in the UK A&E (Accident and Emergency) departments don't give prescriptions until at least the point when you've passed being checked in, assessed by a triage nurse and handed over to a doctor. And that doesn't happen unless you've actually had an accident, or are an emergency.

 

[Omnis]

Something just crossed my mind today:

Have you guys ever wondered if the establishment is pushing harder and harder for socialized medicine in order to more quickly kill off the baby boomers and the people that want to collect their entitlements?

Discuss.

 

[Sage]

I rarely believe conspiracy theories, especially government ones, so, no.

It’s a topic where it’s easy to let emotions take over, and when you have that coupled with an ignorance of economics, well, that’s pretty much where socialist ideas and products come from. And there’s no shortage of emotions and ignorance amongst politicians.

 

[Omnis]

Way to destroy a tongue-in-cheek development.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I wouldn't doubt that the drug or insurance companies are finding some way to benefit from this mass socialization of heathcare that you're going to get from both parties. Thats right, I said both parties... I really don't count the GOP plan to have the government cut us a check to pay for heathcare any different than a metered tax increase (based on income, depends on candidate) to pay either.

Both policies get a resounding "meh" from me, and given how no one votes in this country, it will likely be up to the old people to decide what they want. I honestly don't believe that McCain's $2500-5000 tax credit plan will be able to cover enough people with the insurance that they need, but I don't really know if our country is ready for the Obama or Hillary plan that essentially federalizes heathcare and begins to regulate it strongly. At the very least Obama's plan lets the States continue to do as they please and places the tax burden on the right folks... But yeah, no one wants more federal oversight.

But yes, we're getting socialized medicine whether we like it or not.

 

[Danoff]

Stossel Takes on Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XsRzfckneg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU

 

[Danoff]

It seemed like this thread needed to be bumped based on the current political climate.

 

[FoolKiller]

Careful what you say though, Nancy Pelosi is likening recent protesting to the events that led to the Milk assasination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/pelosi_chokes_up_recalling_mil.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/republicans_denounce_pelosi_fo.html

Q: Madam Speaker, in terms of the political tone, the tone of the debate, Hoyer said earlier this week he thought it was the most vitriolic since '93-'94. And around that time we also saw acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism. How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence?

Speaker Pelosi: Well, I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance.

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.

So I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, so that understanding that some of the people -- the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.